Historical Cases on Sixth Amendment

The sixth amendment seeks to provide all citizens with their rights to counsel, proper access to witnesses, a speedy trial and an unbiased jury (Finkelman, 2014). This therefore allows all citizens to be able to feel free while presenting their cases in the court of law. However, in high profile cases, the media may influence the decisions of the jury, through providing pretrial information to the public, hence affecting the perceptions of the jury concerning either the accused or the defendant. In order to protect rights of either the accused or the defendant which might be threatened by the media, the court employs the following ways (Emanuel, 2009). Gag orders on the hearing of the participants, this order therefore restrains the members of a trial from making extrajudicial declarations, particularly when there is a likelihood that the detrimental publicity may hinder a fair trial. In addition the court may also forbid the media from publishing and presenting any information to the public which may deter a fair trial.

Even though the sixth amendment provides ways through which trials can be protected from the media, the media may sometimes publish the story without the consent of the court (Finkelman, 2014). In addition, due to recent technological advancements, people can take it to the social media, where they can discuss and even pass information concerning the trial. This therefore hinders the court from being able to provide a free and fair trial (Emanuel, 2009). In addition, the public’s perception concerning someone may also hinder a fair hearing, through the use of the social media, since most people take it to the social media to discuss matters which might not seem to be fair. This has therefore made it hard for the courts to be able to render fair judgements, due to the alteration of information by the public.

In the year 1932, a number of African American youths were charged and sentenced with raping two other young women who were whites. The African Americans appealed to the Supreme Court, where it threw out the convictions. This was because the accused did not have an attorney to represent the in a court as the trial progressed (Emanuel, 2009). The case had earlier on been done hastily since the accused’s were young and they did not have necessary funds to hire an attorney.

In the year 1938, two Marines from the United States had been found guilty of possessing fake money, and they were therefore convicted. They were charged and convicted on a single day, and the court did not allow them any attorneys (Emanuel, 2009). The court was then forwarded to the Supreme Court where it overruled against the lower court, sighting that the accused had been denied the right to be represented by an attorney in a court.

In the year 1963, an accused requested the court to appoint a lawyer for him, but his request was denied. This was because in Florida, courts could only appoint defendants in death penalty cases. The accused was therefore convicted and after filing an appeal, the Supreme Court overruled the sentence in his favor (Emanuel, 2009).

The most important part of the sixth amendment, is the rights to have a lawyer to represent the accused regardless of whether one has the potential to pay the lawyer (Finkelman, 2014). The sixth amendment ensures a fair trial through allowing the accused can have a lawyer who can also be paid by the government if the accused is not financially stable. Moreover, the court ensures that the lawyer provides the support that the accused requires in order to ensure a free trial (Emanuel, 2009). The court therefore allows the lawyer to vigorously defend the accused in the court, thus ensuring that the jury gets to make a free and fair trial. The accused can therefore be able to enjoy his or her own rights of protection due to being provided by a lawyer in the court of law. If this aspect was therefore omitted from the sixth amendment, then the court could not be able to hold a fair trial, since the accused could not be able to defend himself or herself in the court.

Reference

Emanuel, S. (2009). Criminal procedure. Austin: Wolters Kluwer, Law & Business.

Finkelman, P. (2014). The Supreme Court: Controversies, Cases, and Characters from John Jay to John Roberts. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.